okay, just my little rant.......

 

Recent article submissions from TV personality and budgie breeder (who shall remain nameless) started me thinking about the influence these people have on our decision making. Many years ago when said TV personality promoted "designer dogs" because they were more hardy animals (which is often but not always true of hybrids) thousands of people rushed to buy their groodle, shitpoo or schmoodle. Then all of a sudden pet shops and backyard breeders started pumping out thousands of "designer puppies" to meet this market. I've seen many many so called "designer dogs" with shocking problems (so much for hybrid vigour) because people were out for the fast buck. Did this stop said TV personality from promoting them heavily? NO WAY.

 

Now I challenge people to go and have a search for what the final result of this has been - disgusting puppy farms where animals are confined their entire life, often sick or injured, pumping out litter after litter to fill our gullible public's insatiable and stupid desire for designer dogs with stupid made up names. Have a look at some undercover videos from right under our noses in Victoria - just horrible.

 

http://www.alv.org.a...pyfactories.php

 

It all makes me wonder about people's credentials and how the public perceives the information presented by TV personalities as if for some reason they are more credible than the average.......... Well after this sad history and the horrible results it promoted, I'm going to stay a sceptic until I see real solid scientific proof thanks very much - otherwise it's all heresay to me.

 

Oh and absolutely no disrespect to the poster of the articles and my rant doesn't mean I don't want to see them, just that I tend to take it all with a grain of salt these days.

Edited May 18, 201114 yr by nubbly5

omg i was all right holding face till that poor little dog tryed to sit on his /her bed what bed a rotten worn out canvas bed i lost it tears everywhere :{

 

sad thing is unless these people have all dogs removed and not allowed to own them this will keep being an issue

 

if deziner puppys were good then they would of been a breed in the first place

i have a cav i was offered a cavoodle but im against deliberate breeding of two breeds

yes theirs muts out their and accidents happen them dogs i can live with but deliberate breeding of two breeds to achieve a certain look im not for

to improve a dog for a true valued reason all so okay

but for cuteness or hair loss factor no sorry not for it

 

ps i didnt realize we had puppy mills im actually very sadden i thought Victorians animal protection laws were better than that

Nubbly,

I think the said person,has some of his idea's,on here in how to breed budgies

I'm not sure if his breeding has been a success,

Thats an animal liberation site right? Believe me you dont want to give those extremist orgs any support. They will do anything to further their cause and that includes lying, cheating, twisting facts, even crimminal damage. They also believe we all dont deserve to keep birds so supporting them is not really doing any favours for yourselves as bird owners.

 

Im sure they could lie cheat and fabricate a story on bird breeders too if they felt that way inclined.

 

I do believe that mob is Peta and we all know they kill nearly every animal they take into their rescues!!! Hypocritical much

Yes it's a liberation site but having known a number of supposedly "registered" breeders who treat their dogs in this manner, I don't doubt the footage one bit. It's a bit hard to fabricate some of the chronic conditions that these dogs were suffering. The eye infections, matted coats, filthy conditions and mental disturbances are not something that is so easily faked. When the almighty dollar calls, some people will do anything.

 

It's not PETA by the way it's a group called Animal Liberation Victoria - don't know if they are affiliated to PETA and don't really care one way or the other.

 

I definitely do not support PETA or any other EXTREMIST animal liberation group and I don't agree with their tactics or their motives.

 

HOWEVER I also DO NOT support the EXPLOITATION of animals in such a way that causes obvious pain and suffering to those animals and you'd be pretty brutal to say that the conditions that these dogs live in is not cruel. I'm also not taken by emotion rubbish but these puppy farms are a fact, just do a bit of research. AND they are a direct result of stupid promotion by TV personalities who for some reason seem to be attributed with more credibility that the rest of us- which was my point in the first place.

Edited May 19, 201114 yr by nubbly5

okay, just my little rant.......

 

Recent article submissions from TV personality and budgie breeder (who shall remain nameless) started me thinking about the influence these people have on our decision making. Many years ago when said TV personality promoted "designer dogs" because they were more hardy animals (which is often but not always true of hybrids) thousands of people rushed to buy their groodle, shitpoo or schmoodle. Then all of a sudden pet shops and backyard breeders started pumping out thousands of "designer puppies" to meet this market. I've seen many many so called "designer dogs" with shocking problems (so much for hybrid vigour) because people were out for the fast buck. Did this stop said TV personality from promoting them heavily? NO WAY.

 

Now I challenge people to go and have a search for what the final result of this has been - disgusting puppy farms where animals are confined their entire life, often sick or injured, pumping out litter after litter to fill our gullible public's insatiable and stupid desire for designer dogs with stupid made up names. Have a look at some undercover videos from right under our noses in Victoria - just horrible.

 

http://www.alv.org.a...pyfactories.php

 

It all makes me wonder about people's credentials and how the public perceives the information presented by TV personalities as if for some reason they are more credible than the average.......... Well after this sad history and the horrible results it promoted, I'm going to stay a sceptic until I see real solid scientific proof thanks very much - otherwise it's all heresay to me.

 

Oh and absolutely no disrespect to the poster of the articles and my rant doesn't mean I don't want to see them, just that I tend to take it all with a grain of salt these days.

 

 

I know this is a rant, but to think that because one person said it was good the result was the puppy farms and poor quality animals is a bit far fetched for me. I have seen him on the show talking about his budgies. Do we blame him for all budgie farms churning out bird after bird?

 

I have met the man and I have found him to be a nice guy.

 

You like everyone have the right to rant, but I personally believe you are being a bit tough on him in your rant.

Yep my right to rant and your right to disagree. He WAS the first to promote the "designer dog" and I bet if he promoted special designer budgies and the general public took to it like they have the the designer dog craze, there would be some shonk out there taking advantage of that too - as with puppy farming. Anyway Dave it's not the churning out of birds, dogs or whatever it's the CONDITIONS that these animals are subjected to whilst they are churning out salable items and I don't think it would have happened to the same extent as it has had he not promoted designer dogs in the manner that he did. Obviously he is not directly responsible for the conditions the dogs are kept in but he IS responsible for a substantial amount of the public demand for these dogs.

 

We all make momentus stuff ups at times and I'd say this was one of his! Sure he probably didn't foresee the end result but it just brings about another point - the responsibility that people hold if they are in the public eye. Makes not a jot of difference if he is a NICE man or not really.

 

I still find it interesting that his information is somehow "more credible" than some other sources? For what reason? Because he is TV personality? Now maybe if he had a degree in genetics and had published many research article that were peer reviewed there would be some reason for it.

Edited May 19, 201114 yr by nubbly5

Yep my right to rant and your right to disagree. He WAS the first to promote the "designer dog" and I bet if he promoted special designer budgies and the general public took to it like they have the the designer dog craze, there would be some shonk out there taking advantage of that too - as with puppy farming. Anyway Dave it's not the churning out of birds, dogs or whatever it's the CONDITIONS that these animals are subjected to whilst they are churning out salable items and I don't think it would have happened to the same extent as it has had he not promoted designer dogs in the manner that he did. Obviously he is not directly responsible for the conditions the dogs are kept in but he IS responsible for a substantial amount of the public demand for these dogs.

 

We all make momentus stuff ups at times and I'd say this was one of his! Sure he probably didn't foresee the end result but it just brings about another point - the responsibility that people hold if they are in the public eye. Makes not a jot of difference if he is a NICE man or not really.

 

I still find it interesting that his information is somehow "more credible" than some other sources? For what reason? Because he is TV personality? Now maybe if he had a degree in genetics and had published many research article that were peer reviewed there would be some reason for it.

 

I do see your point with the designer dogs. In NSW there is a glut of maltese. They are not terriers so I will not call them that. I do not blame the the guy for promoting a product. Personally I think the dogs are great. I blame the puppy farmers and the people who buy them from there.

 

In the western world we take people off the visual medium way too seriously. I mean, if someone tweets famous tweets that they like something, sales soar. I heard that some of the young Hollywood A Listers get $10,000 for tweeting a product name. Good work if you can get it. I always laugh when an actor/actress wins golden globe or oscar for their brilliant performance, they get up on stage to receive their award, then they stumble and um and ah through the whole thing like a novice.

 

The author of the articles in question is a person who had a fantastic knowledge of plants and has bred budgies for many years. As for his designer dogs on the show, vets appear on those shows and talk about breeds, so it is not like the shows host himself "road tested" a dog, but the vet who works on the show did. Sometimes I might disagree with Dr Harry but I respect his opinion as a vet. Here is a similar cicumstance. If the carpenter builds something and recommends something on Better Homes and Gardens and there is a negative social aspect that occurs due to his recommendation, I do not blame Jo Griggs as she hosts the show. I kind of think you are blaming the wrong person here and not remembering a show from many years ago with as well as it might be remembered.

Its an animal welfare issue and as such the authorities need to be involved. Animal liberation/animal rights is not about welfare they are about an idealogical fantasy land were animals have the same rights as humans.

 

All they are dping is trying to get people onside their own cause who do not understand what AL's true motive is and that is complete animal liberation. Peta are here in aus but under different names. One thing you find about them when u do a bit of investigation on them is they are small in numbers but loud in voice and are good at using emotive tactics to get ppl onside.

 

In not agreeing with how the animals are housed , but i can not and will never support those extremist crazies. They should report it to the relevant authorities and be done with it.

The authorities are involved RMM but they are hamstrung by limited animal cruelty laws. Prosecutions and shut downs have occurred for one big puppy farm and an application for it to be re-opened was denied by local council. And after MANY years of working in agriculture I know about PETA and have experienced the stupidly destructive and ill-informed side of extremist animal liberation groups on a personal level. As I said before I don't support them but I support animal welfare as a general principal - okay?!!! You might find one or two of my posts about PETA here from myself if you looked and my feelings are the same as yours but it's not much point just bagging them if you end up sticking your head in the sand over obvious cruelty issues just because they are involved.

 

Yep my right to rant and your right to disagree. He WAS the first to promote the "designer dog" and I bet if he promoted special designer budgies and the general public took to it like they have the the designer dog craze, there would be some shonk out there taking advantage of that too - as with puppy farming. Anyway Dave it's not the churning out of birds, dogs or whatever it's the CONDITIONS that these animals are subjected to whilst they are churning out salable items and I don't think it would have happened to the same extent as it has had he not promoted designer dogs in the manner that he did. Obviously he is not directly responsible for the conditions the dogs are kept in but he IS responsible for a substantial amount of the public demand for these dogs.

 

We all make momentus stuff ups at times and I'd say this was one of his! Sure he probably didn't foresee the end result but it just brings about another point - the responsibility that people hold if they are in the public eye. Makes not a jot of difference if he is a NICE man or not really.

 

I still find it interesting that his information is somehow "more credible" than some other sources? For what reason? Because he is TV personality? Now maybe if he had a degree in genetics and had published many research article that were peer reviewed there would be some reason for it.

 

I do see your point with the designer dogs. In NSW there is a glut of maltese. They are not terriers so I will not call them that. I do not blame the the guy for promoting a product. Personally I think the dogs are great. I blame the puppy farmers and the people who buy them from there.

 

In the western world we take people off the visual medium way too seriously. I mean, if someone tweets famous tweets that they like something, sales soar. I heard that some of the young Hollywood A Listers get $10,000 for tweeting a product name. Good work if you can get it. I always laugh when an actor/actress wins golden globe or oscar for their brilliant performance, they get up on stage to receive their award, then they stumble and um and ah through the whole thing like a novice.

 

The author of the articles in question is a person who had a fantastic knowledge of plants and has bred budgies for many years. As for his designer dogs on the show, vets appear on those shows and talk about breeds, so it is not like the shows host himself "road tested" a dog, but the vet who works on the show did. Sometimes I might disagree with Dr Harry but I respect his opinion as a vet. Here is a similar cicumstance. If the carpenter builds something and recommends something on Better Homes and Gardens and there is a negative social aspect that occurs due to his recommendation, I do not blame Jo Griggs as she hosts the show. I kind of think you are blaming the wrong person here and not remembering a show from many years ago with as well as it might be remembered.

 

I agree that people buying the dogs from pet shops are driving demand and the puppy farmers have the wealth of the blame for actual conditions the poor critters are kept in but the fad started somewhere and he was a very strong promoter - I was a crazy watcher of the program as I loved it but okay sure a few years have passed since!

 

None the less here he is defending designer dogs and the way they are produced (as you would if you were a major proponent of them in the first place I suppose) http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/factsheets/Dogs/Designer-dogs/1391

 

And here is a today tonight article about them stating that our mate WAS one of the first to promote the first of the designer dogs the labradoodle in Aus http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/41259/lifestyle/designer-dogs%5D

 

Anyway thanks for the discussion and for getting my point about media and people in the media and what the general public perceives about what they have to say.

All good nubbly we are on the same page. What i was trying to point out was there is a vast difference between animal welfare and animal liberation. I support animal welfare as any informed person would. And al diverts that for their own gains.

 

Its hard to type big replies from my phone haha

Edited May 25, 201114 yr by Finnie

Yep my right to rant and your right to disagree. He WAS the first to promote the "designer dog" and I bet if he promoted special designer budgies and the general public took to it like they have the the designer dog craze, there would be some shonk out there taking advantage of that too - as with puppy farming. Anyway Dave it's not the churning out of birds, dogs or whatever it's the CONDITIONS that these animals are subjected to whilst they are churning out salable items and I don't think it would have happened to the same extent as it has had he not promoted designer dogs in the manner that he did. Obviously he is not directly responsible for the conditions the dogs are kept in but he IS responsible for a substantial amount of the public demand for these dogs.

 

We all make momentus stuff ups at times and I'd say this was one of his! Sure he probably didn't foresee the end result but it just brings about another point - the responsibility that people hold if they are in the public eye. Makes not a jot of difference if he is a NICE man or not really.

 

I still find it interesting that his information is somehow "more credible" than some other sources? For what reason? Because he is TV personality? Now maybe if he had a degree in genetics and had published many research article that were peer reviewed there would be some reason for it.

 

Minature show budgies could be a thing for the future.

How about fudgies - finch x budgies!